Why is this important? (Important Because)
From The Embassy of Good Science
A description to provide more focus to the theme/resource (max. 200 words)
- ⧼SA Foundation Data Type⧽: Text
T
The 2017 revised edition of the Code addresses emerging challenges emanating from technological developments, open science, citizen science and social media, among other areas. The European Commission recognises the Code as the reference document for research integrity for all EU-funded research projects and as a model for organisations and researchers across Europe. It has been endorsed by the European Association of Social Psychology, in their Diversity and Scientific Integrity Statement. +
The European Code positions itself as the basis for ensuring research integrity, underpinning local, national and discipline specific codes of conduct. The 2023 edition of the code emphasises the objectivity and impartiality of science as key to maintaining research integrity and trust in scientific institutions, but at the same time emphasises the importance of diversity of viewpoints in research as key to achieving these standards. +
Bioethics and law are two matters very much controversial between states since they are related to the core beliefs of each state. Therefore, the ECHRBmed serves as a unifying point, providing basic and general principles. The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology endorses the ECHRBmed in their Code of Ethics. +
Having strong guidelines for the conduct of good clinical practice is important for conducting medical research with integrity, and in such a way that the privacy and autonomy of patients and subjects is respected. +
The current article suggests that text recycling may lead to an unfair advantage in our current scientific working environment, which values the number of publications of an individual researcher and awards grants and funding accordingly. In this system, scientists that engage in text recycling are rewarded more for their work than scientists that do not recycle their texts. Although some argue that text recycling cannot be classified as scientific misconduct, there are now policies and guidelines that contain regulations on text recycling.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000001-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000002-QINU`"' The research discussed here shows that the incidence of problematic text recycling is considerable and higher than other forms of scientific misconduct, such as plagiarism and fabrication. In addition, it gives insight into its possible causes and the influence of policy and journal editors on this practice. Therefore, developing better policies might help to prevent problematic text recycling.
'"`UNIQ--references-00000003-QINU`"' +
The Finnish Code of Conduct for Research Integrity and Procedures for Handling Alleged Violations of Research Integrity in Finland +
The changes made to the Finnish code of conduct show a move to a more international understanding of what constitutes research integrity and good research practice. +
The Finnish Code of Conduct for Research Integrity and Procedures for Handling Alleged Violations of Research Integrity in Finland (2023), Finnish National Board on Research Integrity TENK +
The Finnish Code of Conduct for Research Integrity and Procedures for Handling Alleged Violations of Research Integrity in Finland distils national expectations for research integrity in Finland and clarifies what researchers and institutions in Finland need to do to comply. It reduces ambiguity, aligns local practice with international norms, and offers actionable steps that improve transparency, reproducibility, and equitable access. For policy leads, it is a benchmark;for authors and administrators, it is a practical checklist. Published by Finnish National Board on Research Integrity TENK in 2023, it is a credible reference to cite in institutional policies, training, and grant documentation. +
In the context of competitive grant allotments based on the novelty and merit of research ideas, breaches of scientific integrity at the proposal stage are of high importance. Specifically, plagiarism in research proposals could result in unfairly allocated or even duplicate funding. This results in the inefficient usage of research funds, and it is therefore essential that funding organizations identify and handle such breaches at effectively an early stage. This guideline document provides guidance on how to identify and address plagiarised proposals. +
This document, in addition to making references to laws and principles, includes sections on most practical issues encountered in research such as research planning and management, data generation and protection, work relations, supervision of students, contracts, intellectual property and preventing misconduct. As such, it is a valuable handbook to all those practicing research in France. +
This guideline describes the roles of three stakeholders: funders, those who evaluate proposals and those who carry out research- in ensuring adherence to RI standards. +
This document identifies makes recommendations concerning the following areas: enabling academic integrity, publication process, dealing with disputes, evaluations and assessment and responsibilities of various stakeholders. +
Besides ethical principles, it is important that researchers be aware of national laws such as those of copyright. This influences authorship especially in the case of joint authorship. +
The GRC principles are important because they recognise that research has a dual role in sustainability: it must generate knowledge and solutions for sustainable development, while also reducing the environmental and social impacts of research itself. The statement encourages research funders to use their influence to promote sustainable practices, including responsible travel, resource sharing, open science and sustainable research assessment. It also promotes collaboration across disciplines, countries and communities, recognising that complex sustainability challenges cannot be addressed by one discipline or organisation alone. Importantly, it encourages funders and researchers to focus on quality, long-term impact, inclusion and societal relevance, rather than simply producing more research outputs. +
The Heidelberg Agreement is important because research funding can influence how research is conducted. Funders have the ability to encourage researchers and institutions to reduce environmental impacts through funding requirements, evaluation criteria, incentives and practical support. Rather than asking individual researchers to act alone, the agreement promotes system-level change. It encourages funders to set clear sustainability goals, include environmental considerations in funding decisions, support measurement of research footprints and provide education and accreditation tools. It also promotes collaboration between funders, researchers and research organisations so that successful approaches can be shared and developed. +
"For knowledge to benefit research and society, it must be trustworthy. Trustworthy research is robust, rigorous, and transparent at all stages of design, execution, and reporting. Assessment of researchers still rarely includes considerations related to trustworthiness, rigor, and transparency." +
Interesting read to start a discussion, e.g. as preparation to an exercise or training session or a discussion meeting. +
You learn to see and understand different topics of responsible research through the eyes of different stakeholders in research. +
Regulatory oversight, ethical requirements and institutional safeguards are often viewed by the scientific community as merely decelerating scientific progress and causing delays in the application of treatments. The Hwang’s case represents how unimpeded progress works in contemporary science. Thus, the case might shed light on the often neglected benefits of “the social control of science”. +
The Manchester University's Code of Practice for Investigating Concerns about the Conduct of Research +
Research misconduct can be detrimental to the University and to the scientific community at large. Therefore, allegations of misconduct are to be taken seriously, while simultaneously preserving the confidentiality of the complainants and respondents. Thus, it is essential that goof frameworks and policies exist to identify, screen and investigate misconduct, and to possibly undertake disciplinary action. +
According to various research integrity codes of conduct or guidelines, researchers are expected to possess and to behave according to specific principles or virtues such as: ‘honesty’, ‘reliability’, ‘responsibility’ and ‘accountability’'"`UNIQ--ref-00000003-QINU`"'. But how should a person behave to uphold the virtue of ‘honesty’ in specific situations? Can a researcher be too honest? Or not honest enough? This exercise aims to foster a critical and joint moral inquiry into what it means to demonstrate virtuous behavior in a challenging research integrity situation.
'"`UNIQ--references-00000004-QINU`"' +
